Trial by jury
circumstances that drove her to the brink of despair, but the judge found the circumstances insufficient to overturn the justice of a guilty verdict.
Additionally, judges’ opinions are not fully objective; judges are not immune to prejudice or bias. Although legally qualified and trained, many judges can be influenced by factors such as their political stance, external political pressure, and personal values. Hypothetically, if a judge is sympathetic to a certain group of the population due to their personal experiences or political views, then he might favour the side of the trial with a person who identifies with that group of people. Similarly, if the judge is under pressure from certain political groups, i.e., if he does not rule in favour of the group, he would be physically punished. For example, under the Nazi regime, German judges had to declare rulings in favor of the Nazi Party. As a result, the Nazi’s political opponents were persecuted and sent to prison, whereas illegal acts of violence towards the enemies of the Party were left unpunished. 2 However, historical examples of judicial bias must be treated with caution before being applied to contemporary democratic systems. In a modern democratic society, what is seen as an unjust verdict (if the judge misapplies the law, if there is procedural unfairness, or if evidence is misunderstood) can be appealed to higher courts, which have the power to overrule the rulings of lesser courts, even though appeals are also heard by judges. Further, judges are expected to be as fair as possible, given that judges/judicial magistrates in most countries are required to take a formal oath before entering office. In France, this is outlined in Article 6 of the French Judicial Code, with judges swearing ‘to carry out […] duties with independence, impartiality, and humanity, to conduct […] a worthy, upright, and loyal magistrate’. 3 Under Roman law, magistrates and judges took oaths upon assuming their positions; they were bound by the oath to fulfill their duties according to ius , which is a public declaration that they would not abuse their power, accept bribes, or act with prejudice. Therefore, while judges are meant to be just and unbiased, in practice, there are shortcomings in a system in which criminal cases are decided solely by judges. This is why many countries adopt a system of trial by jury in dealing with serious felonies. On the other hand, one can argue that a trial by jury is obsolete due to procedural complications, bias, and the lack of transparency. In medieval England, the typical jury size was 12 people due to religious influence – mirroring the 12 disciples of Jesus – allowing deep discussions within the jury while making it manageable. This is practically significant because while a jury needs to represent different viewpoints, it also needs to be efficient. The historic number 12 meets both expectations, and it remains the standard size of a jury in modern England and America. 4 The jury offers a more diverse perspective in dealing with criminal cases; a jury is, democratically, a better representative of the community than a judge. Symbolically, a jury makes the case that guilt or innocence in criminal acts is of community interest. But should justice reflect majority opinion? What if the majority is prejudiced? I would contend that jury trial is not obsolete precisely because it acts in favour of the public interest and occasionally resists the law.
2 See Holocaust encyclopedia (n.d.). 3 See Legifrance (n.d.). 4 Lawteacher 2018; MIlners 2023; Neal 2024.
154
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting